I am curious about what other people's thoughts are on this subject. If the standard is "present moral fitness to practice law," then how can the Bar Examiners use past conduct from years ago to justify not admitting people to the bar on C & F grounds, especially assuming if the conduct was never denied by the applicant?

ericjjjy wrote:I am curious about what other people's thoughts are on this subject. If the standard is "present moral fitness to practice law," then how can the Bar Examiners use past conduct from years ago to justify not admitting people to the bar on C & F grounds, especially assuming if the conduct was never denied by the applicant?

From the way I understood it, the only way you can definitely go wrong and be denied admittance to the bar is by attempting to hide past conduct. You would be amazed what they will forgive as long as you disclose it. It's not so much about what you did, but that you own up to it.

There are extreme examples of conduct that may be unforgiveable depending on the time that has passed since the incident. If you defrauded a business client out of thousands of dollars 2 years ago, or committed murder 1 year ago, they might not look the other way. Other than that, I think you're fine as long as you are completely open.

I disagree with some of the advice offered in the above post. Many types of past conduct can result in being prohibited from sitting for a bar exam, even juvenile criminal activity. Also many measure criminal conduct from the date of the offense or conviction while many statutes measure it from time of completion of the sentence.To answer the OP's question, many view past conduct as an indication of one's morals & a potential predictor of future conduct.

I believe his point was that there are very few per se denial triggers for C&F. Even felony convictions are only automatic in a few states. You may need to display lots of time and rehabilitation to establish that you have good character and fitness to practice law, but you are rarely completely shut out except with the "lie to them during C&F" trigger.

It not being an automatic denial doesn't mean you can't be denied for it. The classic example that comes up on TLS all the time is "Hey, I'm just going to make up shit on my resume and/or not disclose criminal history when applying to law school." That doesn't tend to end well.

ericjjjy wrote:About 5-6 years ago, I provided information to another individual about a third person. The other individual distributed the info in a public forum attaching their name, not mine. The third person then wrote a series of online posts and letters to editors (which show up with a google search of my name) describing briefly what happened (I was mentioned as to what I described) and claimed defamation. No one was ever sued, nor investigated.

I think you're really overreacting. This is the second post where you've mentioned this. Just hit the search button and take a look at some of the stuff people have done on here and still been admitted. Your situation seems like it was no more than an immature squabble that got out of hand. So you told some business that wasn't yours to tell. I'm sure you've matured a hundred times since then. Seriously, chill.

ericjjjy wrote:About 5-6 years ago, I provided information to another individual about a third person. The other individual distributed the info in a public forum attaching their name, not mine. The third person then wrote a series of online posts and letters to editors (which show up with a google search of my name) describing briefly what happened (I was mentioned as to what I described) and claimed defamation. No one was ever sued, nor investigated.